4 ms·

One thing to point out is that different areas of the US are doing better and worse on a lot of things. This is a good example. It would be better to look at th

One thing to point out is that different areas of the US are doing better and worse on a lot of things. This is a good example. It would be better to look at the different metropolises of the US when talking about various things like ev adoption, bike usage, etc. We have many areas of the US that have similar density to that of Norway.

kjkjadksj 3y ago
Even then its hard to compare to europe because US metros are so much larger in population and size. Oslo has a smaller population than Columbus, Ohio which isn’t even a large or very significant city. It ends up being an apples to oranges comparison unless you subset an area of the US that has a similar population density and demography as a similarly sized area in Europe, and no one does that because that means splitting metros into weird pieces that people find harder to think about than “city x vs city y.”
- bluejekyll 3y ago
  The reason I think Metros is more important than either city v city, or State v State, is that many metros can cross state lines, and may include multiple cities. The Bay Area is a good example of the latter with Oakland and San Francisco being in the same metro area. It’s the metro where things like public transit become valuable options, or charging infrastructure for commutes is important, etc.
- audunw 3y ago
  You can definitely find a similar metropolitan areas to Oslo in the US. I find Portland to be quite similar. So why don’t they have a similar adoption rate? I don’t see how the “but USA is bigger” means that ALL of USA is completely off the hook.
arcade79 3y ago
Yes. You've got Nebraska, Idaho, Nevada and Kansas! THey all have a lower population density than Norway! Therefore the other states don't need to bother.. EDIT: Ugh, thinking, typing and using a search engine. The above is wrong. They all have a higher population density than Norway. The following states have a lower population density: Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota The argument stands, but the list of states was wrong. ;)

kjkjadksj 3y ago

Even then its hard to compare to europe because US metros are so much larger in population and size. Oslo has a smaller population than Columbus, Ohio which isn’t even a large or very significant city. It ends up being an apples to oranges comparison unless you subset an area of the US that has a similar population density and demography as a similarly sized area in Europe, and no one does that because that means splitting metros into weird pieces that people find harder to think about than “city x vs city y.”

bluejekyll 3y ago
The reason I think Metros is more important than either city v city, or State v State, is that many metros can cross state lines, and may include multiple cities. The Bay Area is a good example of the latter with Oakland and San Francisco being in the same metro area. It’s the metro where things like public transit become valuable options, or charging infrastructure for commutes is important, etc.
audunw 3y ago
You can definitely find a similar metropolitan areas to Oslo in the US. I find Portland to be quite similar. So why don’t they have a similar adoption rate? I don’t see how the “but USA is bigger” means that ALL of USA is completely off the hook.

arcade79 3y ago

Yes. You've got Nebraska, Idaho, Nevada and Kansas! THey all have a lower population density than Norway! Therefore the other states don't need to bother.. EDIT: Ugh, thinking, typing and using a search engine. The above is wrong. They all have a higher population density than Norway. The following states have a lower population density: Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota The argument stands, but the list of states was wrong. ;)